The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:
“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satellite technology has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. That company is Techcorporation. A consumer survey last year indicated that over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider and would want to switch to another provider if the industry were not a monopoly. Thus, the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television will prove to be highly profitable for those who invest now.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
Techcorporation may be a new and intruging company, but it is critical that more imformation be gathered in order to determine whether an investment in their company will be worthwhile for investors.
First, the claim argues that Techcorporation has proven to compete with the current satellite provider. This argument does not provide any insight into the competitive advantage of the new satellite, if there is any. Without understanding even a basic-level technological basis to the new product, there cannot be a full assessment of the product in relation to the current satellite provider's. Are they the same product, just with different brands? Does Techcorporation have some new trademark technology that will allow for better service? To fully make a claim about the value of investing in Techcorporation, more information on the developed sateelite technology that has been approved should be shared to understand the competitive advantage of the product as it gets set to enter a market with a strong competitor.
Another lacking piece of information is a further market analyses. The claim notes that the industry is a monopoly, but there is information missing on why this may be true. If there are massive barriers to entry into this market that have prevented other satellite companies from competiting with the current satellite provider, how can it be assured that Techcorporation will not fall victim to the same difficulties? For example, if the current satellite provider has a monopoly on the industry because of their exclusive rights to the largest satellite production factory in a region, this may change the prognosis of Techcorprations anticipated success. An analysis must be conducted around the history of other satellite companies in the industry, as well as the structures in place that have allowed Techcorporation's competition to flourish into a monopoly, to ensure that Techcorporation can succeed in this established market.
Thirdly, the claim argues that the venture of Techcorporation will be profitable for those who invest now in the company. More information is needed to quantify these profits so that investors can get a comprehensive picture of the returns of their investment, and the risks. For example, if an investment is estimated to have only a minor return that is achieved 10 years after Techcorporation becomes profitable, an investors willingness may be different than if comprehensive analyses from outside sources predict a doubling of their investment in the first 6 months. While it may be true that the investment will be profitable, information is needed to ascertain the degree of this profit, who will benefit, and the timeline of the benefit to the investors. Without this financial assessment on the sake of the investors, a decision about the worth of an investment in Techcorporation cannot be made.
Techcorporation may have a newly approved technology, but in order to fully understand the potential for profit for its investors, the company must acquire new and comprehensive information to paint the full picture.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-26 | Ataraxia-m | 64 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2555 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.246 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.246 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 88 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.093 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.573 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 419, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'investors'' or 'investor's'?
Suggestion: investors'; investor's
... Techcorporation becomes profitable, an investors willingness may be different than if co...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 458, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
... investors willingness may be different than if comprehensive analyses from outside ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, so, third, thirdly, well, while, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2609.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35728952772 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30848551856 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457905544148 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 837.0 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.8180111181 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.944444444 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0555555556 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.27777777778 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231472231412 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0807405667243 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453926742735 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143483982854 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181731379924 0.0628817314937 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.